A Crash Course in Key SUPERMAN Ruling Expected Soon

If reports are to be believed, DC Comics may soon find out whether or
not it will have to relinquish part of its ownership of Superman to the
estate of one of the character's co-creators.

Earlier this week,
US District Judge Otis Wright cancelled a hearing that was set for next
Monday on the matter of whether or not DC could expect a summary
judgment over the validity of a claim of ownership made by Mark Warren
Peary, the nephew of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster, announcing that he
would instead decide the issue without hearing oral argument. Should
Judge Wright rule that Peary has no claim, that doesn't necessarily mean
that DC gets to own Superman outright, however; with complexity to
match even the most convoluted summer event crossover to date, the legal
battle over who owns the Man of Steel turns out to be ridiculously
complicated.

Let's start with the subject that Judge Wright will
be deciding soon. DC Comics and parent company Time Warner has asked for
a summary judgment - essentially, a ruling from a judge with no jury
involvement - over whether or not Peary can reclaim part-ownership of
the copyright to Superman in October 2013. Peary - acting as executor of
the estate of Shuster - filed a notice of termination of copyright in
2003, something that would normally allow the creator or estate thereof
to reclaim ownership of material after a set period of time as defined
under existing copyright law
in the United States. We say "normally," because according to lawyers
working for DC, any attempt to terminate copyright on the part of the
Shuster estate is automatically invalid because Peary's parents had
waived any such claim as part of a 1992 agreement with the publisher.

That
1992 agreement came about following the death that year of Shuster
himself. Following his death, Jean and Frank Peavy - the sister and
brother-in-law of Shuster, respectively - found themselves saddled with
the debt that Shuster had accumulated across the years. Suddenly
responsible for an overwhelming amount of moneys owed to various parties
- including more than $20,000 in credit card bills alone - on Shuster's
behalf, Jean Peavy reached out to Time Warner to ask for financial
assistance. "The kindness and generosity of Warner Communications and
now Time Warner has been demonstrated in the past," Peavy wrote to Time
Warner Vice President Marty Payson in a letter dated August 21, 1992.
"Any help that Time Warner could give to the family of Joe Shuster to
pay his final debts and expenses would be warmly appreciated at this
time of mourning."

Time Warner not only paid off all of Shuster's
debts, the company also informed the Peavys that they were legally
entitled to an annual pension from the company under the terms of a 1975
agreement between DC and the Superman creators - as long as they waived
any future claim to the rights of the Superman character. That
agreement - which came about as a result of behind-the-scenes agitation
by creators including Jerry Robinson and Neal Adams over the shoddy
treatment of the men who had created DC's most important character -
promised both creators a life-long annual pension of $25,000, medical
benefits and bonuses. It also offered the same to both creators' heirs
for a fixed time following their passing (which is where the Peavy's
pensions came from). The Peavys happily signed, and maintained a
generally-good relationship with DC and Time Warner from that point
onwards, albeit one punctuated with occasional requests for an increase
in the pension amount (Eventually granted, although "bonuses" were more
commonly given instead of an official pension increase) accompanied by
reassurances that there was no interest in reclaiming copyright in
Superman.

Until 2003, that is.

By that point, Mark Warren
Peavy was officially in charge of the Shuster estate, and attorney Marc
Toberoff had entered the picture. After almost a decade of denying any
interest in the rights to Superman, the Peavys performed an about-face
in 2001, signing a contract with Toberoff that apparently not only
announced the intent to reclaim Joe Shuster's 50% share to the rights of
certain parts of the Superman mythos (according to the contract, those
parts are "Superman, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Lex Luther
[sic], Lana Lang, Mr. Mxyztplk, Superboy, Supergirl, The Daily Planet,
Krypton, Kryptonite and Smallville") but went on to award Toberoff's
company Pacific Pictures, with half of all "moneys and proceeds" from
those rights. Yes, Toberoff would essentially receive a quarter of the
Man of Steel for his efforts.

Additionally, Toberoff had earlier signed a very similar deal with Joanne Siegel, the widow of Superman's other creator Jerry, that gave him 40% of her
share, too. Presuming both terminations of copyright went through, Marc
Toberoff could potentially own the majority share in Superman, despite
having no true claim to him in any way.

Back to the present day,
however. What Judge Wright - remember him? - will have to decide in his
ruling is whether or not Mark Warren Peavy has any legal right to file a
termination of copyright in the first place, given that his parents had
actually signed away that right in 1992. Time Warner and DC's lawyers
are arguing that, no, obviously he doesn't, and Peavy and Toberoff are pushing the idea that he does - and they may, possibly, have the law on their side.

What
complicates matters even more is that it seems that the 1992 agreement
itself may not be legally valid, according to some interpretations. At
the time it was signed, US law said that only the spouse, child or
grandchild of a creator could hold claim to any copyright, and Jean was
none of those… Meaning that she had signed away something that she
couldn't actually have claimed anyway. The law was changed in 1998,
allowing executors of estates the same level of ownership, and so Mark
Warren Peavy, who officially became executor of the Shuster estate in
2003, may have the right to reclaim it now.